|
To me, this article misses the point, but only slightly. If we compare the proposed Photoshop for text and the actual Photoshop for images, those are very different tools in how they work with their respective mediums. Photoshop doesn’t use AI models to generate new things for the artist, photographer, whoever (it does have generation of course, but not in the same way). A tool like Photoshop for text, in the way described, seems more like a writing aid than a writing tool; something I can give vague commands like “make this paragraph more academic” (whatever that means), and it’ll spit out something approximating the academic style it analyzed. Whereas “auto balance the levels of this image” is much more concrete in what it means, there’s no approximation of “style.” I feel like Photoshop for text should be an editor that cares more about the structure of stories and who’s in them, with ways to organize big chunks in easy ways, rather than something that generates content for you. |
It certainly does have this, such as tools to remove objects and paint over them as if they were not there, automatic sky replacement (replace a cloudy sky with a sunset), super resolution (AI up scaling) and a range of what they call 'Neural Filters'.
You want your low quality boring midday image of some famous bridge to be a high resolution, taken during sunrise without that person riding a bicycle? Photoshop will do it with very little user skill or input.
Some beta features include style transfer, makeup transfer and automatic smile enhancment.